Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: to Bruce & Jerry

Expand Messages
  • dalval14@earthlink.net
    Thursday, February 07, 2002 Dear Bruce: and Jerry: What has emerged as Dzogchen recently does not seem to be mentioned by H P B that I can locate. The
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Thursday, February 07, 2002

      Dear Bruce: and Jerry:

      What has emerged as "Dzogchen" recently does not seem to be
      mentioned by H P B that I can locate. The "Mahayana" the great
      Path or Method is.

      If as H P B and the Masters of WISDOM, claim THEOSOPHY is
      primeval and eternal wisdom about everything, then I see no
      barriers to making correlations to any system. However I would
      suggest that THEOSOPHY is more likely to explain than be
      explained by any "system."

      I am not aware that any physical contorted posture adds much to
      the mental will and the internal determination of trying to know
      the TRUE. It may have something to do with the astral and pranic
      currents, but I do not find any specifics in Theosophy covering

      I would say if the determination,, attention, will and aspiration
      are firm and directed to the truly impersonal ALL, then any
      devotee will acquire some understanding in addition to the
      scattered fragments of information available through a study of
      the early theosophical literature.

      It seems to me the first effort is towards acquiring an actual
      knowledge of, and memory of what has been offered. Then follows
      individual attempts at correlation and "fitting" one statement to

      A more definite "picture" emerges if one gives patient and
      persistent time to this process. But, it can be said this
      applies as a method to learning anything. Each individual who
      chooses or elects to apply such a process makes for themselves an
      ever growing fund of understanding in depth and breadth.

      Is this not so?

      Best wishes,


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bruce F. MacDonald]
      Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 2:38 PM
      To: T
      Subject: Re: Re to Bruce

      At 10:55 PM 2/4/02 +0800, you wrote:
      >I have never been able to sit in lotus or half-lotus, or med at
      >times, etc. Regimentation has always been hard for me. So, I
      took to
      >Dzogchen like a duck to water. A very long time ago, James Long
      told me
      >that the Western constitution is different from the Eastern
      >and that Eastern yoga would never find a home in the West. Later
      I found
      >that Jung had said the same thing. Anyway, my own experience
      suggests the
      >truth of this, and so Dzogchen would seem to be a more
      acceptable practice
      >in the West than formal Zen-like sitting sessions. Theosophy has
      >techniques per se, so Theosophically one should use whatever
      works best.
      >The goal is to break through manas and raise consciousness to
      >and it really doesn't matter how one does that (ie techniques
      have to vary
      >to fit the person).

      Bruce: Agreed. I also can't sit cross legged, even though I
      grew up in
      India and even as a child couldn't manage it -- I think my bones
      designed right for that. However, sitting in a chair or on a
      hill or lying
      down work just as well in my experience. I too like the
      informality and
      the freedom from specific doctrines and practices of Theosophy,
      although I have gone a long way in meditation already, I do find
      some of
      the ideas of Dzogchen helpful in pushing just that little bit
      beyond manas to atma/buddhi.

      Blavatsky seems to have taken at least one major
      teaching of
      Dzogchen (whether from Bon or Buddhism, I don't know, both teach
      it) and
      that is the idea that matter and spirit are two sides of the same
      thing and
      that both are maya. Hinayana for example, teaches that
      matter/samsara is
      unreal/relative/maya while spirit/nirvana is real/absolute, and
      thus never
      gets out of this dualism, while Dzogchen is totally
      non-dualistic. I see a
      lot of Theosophists on this list and on theos-world advocating
      the Hinayana
      position. I have been trying to show that a Mahayana position,
      and even a
      Dzogchen position are also possible within the Theosophical
      umbrella. To do
      this, I have to make the assumption that Blavatsky knew more than
      she wrote
      about, and that some of her more profound teachings are in the
      form of
      hints and short statements that she deliberately intermixed
      within her

      Bruce: But also, just to add to what you have said, it seems to
      me that
      Dzogchen (like HPB) is also saying that although matter and
      spirit are both
      Maya, when seen from the perspective of the enlightened "base"
      (as one book
      puts it) they are also beyond Maya because they are an expression
      of the
      Base. So they are Maya when seen from the perspective of the
      mind which
      functions from the view of Maya, but they (both samsara and
      nirvana) are
      both beyond Maya when seen from the perspective of enlightenment.
      you or Ian or both can comment on that.

      Peace, Bruce

      You are currently subscribed to theos-l as:
      List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
      To unsubscribe send a blank email to
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.